HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 03-02-12 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN
ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS FOR COLLEGES
OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
(NORTHERN COLLEGE)
(the "Employer")
- and -
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
(FOR SUPPORT STAFF EMPLOYEES)
(the "Union")
AND IN THE MATFER OF A UNION GRIEVANCE
#2654o1 (CONVERSION)
(the "Grievance")
BEFORE:
C. Gordon Simmons, Chair
Mr. R. FoB Employer Nominee
Mr. Mike Sullivan, Union Nominee
APPEARANCES ON BEHALF OF THE EMPLOYER:
Mr. Wallace Kenney, Counsel
APPEARANCES ON BEHALF OF THE UNION:
Mr. Don Martin, Consultant
A hearing into this matter was held in Timmins, Ontario on January 16,
2003.
-2-
This is a union grievance which claims a ~5olation of art. 1.2 "and any other article"
(ex. 1) in that the employer failed to convert part-time staff in the gym in South Porcupine
campus to full time. Article 1.2 reads:
Staffing Considerations
Recognizing that the College reserves the right as provided in Article 3, to
determine the number and composition of full-time, part-time, and otherwise
excluded positions, and to determine the work assignments that are appropriate
in each case, the College agrees to endeavour to give preference to full-time over
part-time assignments, and to convert part-time to full-time assignments where
feasible, subject to such operational requirements as may be appropriate.
As the hearing proceeded the union focussed as well on art. 15.3.3 which stipulates a specific
obligation in layoff procedures it claimed were not adhered to. The relevant pro~Ssions of
art. 15.3 are as follows:
15.3 Committee
15.3.1 Meetings
In addition to committee meetings under Article 14.7.1, the Employment
Stability Committee (ESC) shall meet within five (5) calendar days of the giving
of such notice, unless the parties mutually agree to extend these time limits.
15.3.3 Recommendations
It shall be the duty of the ESC to consider the matter and to make
recommendations to the President of the College with respect to any or alt of the
alternatives listed below which might be resorted to in order to prevent or
minimize the dislocation of employees:
Potential creation of vacancies that might be filled by affected
employees;
2. Conversion of part-time positions and/or displacement of non-
bargaining unit employees;
3. The utilization of other means, such as normal retirements, voluntary
leaves or transfers in order to prevent or minimize the effects of the
action contemplated;
4. The improvement of employment potential for employees affected by
the provision of training or retraining programs and job counselling;
5. Investigation of potential alternative job opportunities that might exist
for employees affected both w/thin and outside the College, such as
comparable employment opportunities;
-3-
6. The temporary assignment of redundant and displaced employees to
positions held by other employees who are on various leaves of
absences.
It will be the duty of the ESC to make recommendations to the President of the
College within fourteen (14) calendar days of notice provided under Article 15.2.
Where the ESC is unable to agree on any recommendations, the members
appointed by the Union and the members appointed by the College may make
separate recommendations. Where separate recommendations are to be
delivered they will be exchanged between the appointees prior to delivery.
The facts may be stated briefly as follows. The employer decided to contract out
certain caretaker work that had been performed by caretakers. Six caretakers were given
layoff notices. None of the six employees filed a grievance. They were either accommodated
by taking emplo~ent with the contractor; took early retirement packages or were
accommodated elsewhere. But the union maintains there were part-time positions in the
gym that ought to have been converted into full4ime thus providing work for full4ime
employees. Therefore, the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to have
carried out its obligation pursuant to art. 1.2.
The Board was provided with a copy of the duties and responsibilities of a caretaker
as described in the Position Description Form (ex. 5). They include:
-4-
APPROX. % TIME
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ANNUALLY
Provides cleaning and basic maintenance 7o%
services in all areas of college buildings.
Maintains grounds using tractors, mowers, 5%
etc. (mows grass, plants flowers, trees,
trims shrubbery). Shovels snow, keeps
entrance clear in winter.
Ensures the safekeeping of all college 9%
buildings and property by monitoring
appropriate security measures.
Moves furniture, equipment and supplies 8%
to meet the needs of staff, students and
visitors of college services
Provides assistance to other departments 3%
during peak periods. Ie: bulk mailings,
errands during orientation week, etc.
Performs other related duties as assigned 5%
TOTAL: loo%
The hourly start rate for Caretaker A is $13.56 as of September 1, 2000.
The Gym Monitor or Wellness Centre Attendant are students who perform certain
duties in the Gym and Wellness Centre. The description of their job duties are as follows
(ex. 3):
II DESCRIPTION OF JOB DUTIES: Wellness Centre Attendants II
-5-
· :o Booking courts and caridio [sic] equipment
· :- Update memberships registry
· :o Ensure guests are signed in and day passes
are paid
· :o Check IDs for minimum age requirements for
weight rooms and courts
· :. Sign out equipment, making sure it's in a
good state of repair
· :o Ensure persons using the weight room are
instructed on the use of the equipment
· :o Monitor courts, weight room, and gym to
ensure the safety of the users
· :o General cleaning of the athletic facility, ie
light dusting, tidying, sweeping, vacuuming, etc.
· :o Nightly deposits of day receipts
Require minimum of 8 positions to accommodate total of 86.5 hours per week
coverage. (These hours can be difficult to fill when working around student
timetables.)
Times open: Monday - Friday, 7:30 am - lO:OO pm
Saturday & Sunday, 9:00 am - 4:00 pm
RATE OF PAY; $6.85 + 4% HOURS PER WEEK: Up to 24, as needed
EMPLOYMENT DATES; August 26, 2002 -- May 3, 2oo3_(or to date
summer students begin work)
The evidence disclosed students apply for these positions and receive $6.85 plus 4%
per hour. Ms Tori Hanson, campus manager at Porcupine Campus in charge, inter alia, of
the Gym and Fitness Centre, including the Wellness Centre, testified the funding for the
athletic activities is provided by various means. These include:
· student fees allotted for athletics;
· community memberships;
· Ontario Government through the Ontario Work Studies Plan (OWSP).
Certain funding provided to colleges and universities by the Ontario
Government is specifically earmarked for student employment.
Northern College receives a yearly allotment through this source.
· A tuition set aside fund. That is, the government stipulates 3o% oft~e
increase of tuition fees since 2998 must be set aside for direct student
assistance (ex. 4: Policy Manual respecting tuition fees, p. 22). The
college calls this the needy student fund.
-6-
Thus, a major portion of the funding is provided by the Ontario Government which
specifies the funds be used for student employment assistance. In addition, certain tuition
fee increases are to be used for student assistance. If these funds were not allocated to
student use they would disappear. That is, if full-time caretakers were to assume the duties
performed by the students then not only would the college lose this special funding and
tuition fee assistance it would be obligated to find the funds elsewhere which it maintains it
does not possess.
The students average lO hours per week of work. They book courts, sign people in,
hand out towels, etc. from a central desk area; generally clean up after equipment has been
used and receive money for day admission to the facilities. Ms Hanson was taken through
the duties and responsibilities of the caretaker. She testified the students never perform
any of the caretaker's duties that make up 70% of their duties as described in their job
description as reproduced above. The only cleaning students perform is to mop up an area
after usage by others who use the facilities and may require 5% (up to a maximum of lO%)
of their time. However, the cleaning the students perform is never with the same intensity
required of caretakers. In reviewing the remaining duties of the caretaker as reproduced
above, Ms Hanson said students do a "tiny amount" of safekeeping by locking up their own
area. They are not expected to move furniture and she assumes they might pro~Sde
assistance from time to time to others but if they do it is their own goodwill and not one of
their required duties.
In turning to art. 15 the Board was informed the Committee met when it was first
contemplated that certain caretakdng duties were being considered for contracting out.
Managernent members of the Committee filed a separate recommendation to the President.
-7-
It recommended art. 15.4.3 (bumping procedure) be followed resulting in layoffs (ex. 8).
The union members of the Committee recommended art. 1.9 be used to convert part-time
g3xn positions to full-time positions. The recommendation reads (ex. 12):
With regard to the Caretakers' layoffs, Local 654 recommendations follow:
Under Article 1.2 convert part time gym positions to full time positions:
The total number of part time hours for the gym operation is tee hours. Since
all the work is similar in nature, this would make three (3) full time positions
available to be offered to Denis Caron, Curt Da~Ss and Mario Barbuto.
This would cause the least disruption and no displacement of staff.
The Board is unable to conclude the process required by art. 15.3 was not followed.
Article 15.3.3 provides for separate recommendations being delivered tothe President. The
union suggests the management members failed to make a recommendation within the
intent of the article. It simply recommended layoffs occur. It appears to the Board that
unless the article strictly prohibits the Committee from recommending layoffs then as long
as it follows the required procedure set out in the article it will have fulfilled its obligation.
The Committee met. Its management members filed a separate recommendation to the
president. Its union members filed a separate recommendation to the president. The
article expressly permits the filing of separate recommendations. The required process was
followed. Therefore, the Board is unable to find any violation of art. 15.
The Board had an opportunity to review art. 1.2 on an earlier occasion. In a decision
involving Cambrian College of Applied Arts & Technology and Ontario Public Service
Employees Union (unreported), dated September 7,1994 (Simmons, Cameletti, McManus)
the following appears on p. 7 of that decision:
-8-
We have detailed the requirements of the Needs Assessor position.
When one looks carefully at Article 1.2 it would appear that the intent of the
article is as the Employer has outlined to the Board. The Employer agrees to
endeavour to give preference to full-time over part-time assignments and to
convert part-time to full-time assignments where feasible. In our ~Sew, the
assignments contemplated in Article 1.2 are assignments within a particular
classification as submitted by the Employer. That is to say, if the Employer was
found to be employing two part-time employees in a particular classification for
90 hours a week each, then it would seem that Article ~.2 would be the
appropriate vehicle for the Union to demand that the two part-time positions be
merged into one.
In the Cambrian decision a number of various part-time positions were reviewed with
a view to cobbling them together to make one full-time position. The positions were not
confined to one classification. Additionally, the cost of conversion in the case of the Cook
was significant if it was to be made into a full-time position. The Board concluded it was
unable to order the employer carry out the expenditures required to accommodate the
wishes of the union. It accepted the employer's position it would not be feasible to do so.
In turning to the instant situation the Board finds the duties and responsibilities of
the students do not resemble those of caretakers. The work each group performs is not
related. Moreover, the source of funding for students would evaporate if the duties they
perform were assigned to full-time caretakers.
After having considered the evidence and submissions of the parties it is the view of
the Board that art. 1.2 was never intended to address the existing situation. As was stated in
the Cambrian decision, assignments contemplated in art. 1.2 are assignments within a
particular classification where a number of part-time positions exist that can be merged into
one full-time position. But that is not what is before us. We have found no resemblance in
the duties performed by caretakers to those of students in the Gym or Wellness Centre. It
must be our finding therefore that the classification of caretaker and the duties and
-9-
responsibilities set out therein do not fit within the job duties of the students as required in
their job description.
Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, the grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Kingston, Ontario, this 12th day of February, 2003.
C. Gordon Simmons
Chairperson
R. Foy
I concur/dissent
R. Foy
Employer Nominee
Michael Sullivan
I concur/dissent
Michael Sullivan
Union Nominee